36452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 / Notices

PLACE: NTSB Board Room, 5th Floor,

490 L’ Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20594.

STATUS: OPEN.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

6912A—Railroad Accident Report—

Derailment of Amtrak Train 4, on the

Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Railway, Kingman, Arizona, August 9,

1997.

6667A—Marine Accident Report—Fire

aboard the Tug Scandia and the

Subsequent Grounding of the Tug and

Tank Barge North Cape, Moonstone,

Beach, South Kingston, Rhode Island,

January 19, 1996.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)

314–6100

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda

Underwood, (202) 314–6065.

Rhonda Underwood,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–17930 Filed 7–1–98; 12:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–461]

In the Matter of Illinois Power and

Clinton Power Station; Confirmatory

Order Modifying License Effective

Immediately

I

Illinois Power (IP or the Licensee) is

the holder of Facility Operating License

No. NPF–62, which authorizes

operation of Clinton Power Station

located in DeWitt County, Illinois.

II

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been

concerned that Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire

barrier systems installed by licensees

may not provide the level of fire

endurance intended and that licensees

that use Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers

may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. During the 1992 to 1994

timeframe, the NRC staff issued Generic

Letter (GL) 92–08, ‘‘Thermo-Lag 330–1

Fire Barriers,’’ and subsequent requests

for additional information that

requested licensees to submit plans and

schedules for resolving the Thermo-Lag

issue. The NRC staff has obtained and

reviewed all licensees’ corrective plans

and schedules. The staff is concerned

that some licensees may not be making

adequate progress toward resolving the

plant-specific issues, and that some

implementation schedules may be either

too tenuous or too protracted. For

example, several licensees informed the

NRC staff that their completion dates

had slipped by 6 months to as much as

3 years. For plants that have completion

action scheduled beyond 1997, the NRC

staff has met with these licensees to

discuss the progress of the licensees’

corrective actions and the extent of

licensee management attention

regarding completion of Thermo-Lag

corrective actions. In addition, the NRC

staff discussed with licensees the

possibility of accelerating their

completion schedules.

IP was one of the licensees with

which the NRC staff held meetings. At

these meetings, the NRC staff reviewed

with IP the schedule of Thermo-Lag

corrective actions described in the IP

submittals to the NRC. Based on the

information submitted by IP, and

provided during the meetings, the NRC

staff has concluded that the schedules

presented by IP are reasonable. This

conclusion is based on the (1) amount

of installed Thermo-Lag, (2) the

complexity of the plant-specific fire

barrier configurations and issues, (3) the

need to perform certain plant

modifications during outages as

opposed to those that can be performed

while the plant is at power, and (4)

integration with other significant, but

unrelated issues that IP is addressing at

its plant. In order to remove

compensatory measures such as fire

watches, it has been determined that

resolution of the Thermo-Lag corrective

actions by IP must be completed in

accordance with current IP schedules.

By letter dated May 3, 1998, the NRC

staff notified IP of its plan to incorporate

IP’s schedule commitment into a

requirement by issuance of an order and

requested consent from the Licensee. By

letter dated May 22, 1998, the Licensee

provided its consent to issuance of a

Confirmatory Order.

III

The Licensee’s commitment as set

forth in its letter of May 22, 1998, is

acceptable and is necessary for the NRC

to conclude that public health and

safety are reasonably assured. To

preclude any schedule slippage and to

assure public health and safety, the NRC

staff has determined that the Licensee’s

commitment in its May 22, 1998, letter

be confirmed by this Order. The

Licensee has agreed to this action. Based

on the above, and the Licensee’s

consent, this Order is immediately

effective upon issuance.

IV

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR

Part 50, It is hereby ordered, effective

immediately, that:

Illinois Power (IP) complete final

implementation of Thermo-Lag 330–1

fire barrier corrective actions at Clinton

Power Station as described in the June

19, 1997, and March 30, 1998,

submittals to the NRC, in addition to the

repair of the butt joint described in the

March 28, 1995, submittal to the NRC,

by December 31, 1998.

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, may relax or

rescind, in writing, any provisions of

this Confirmatory Order upon a showing

by the Licensee of good cause.

V

Any person adversely affected by this

Confirmatory Order, other than the

Licensee, may request a hearing within

20 days of its issuance. Where good

cause is shown, consideration will be

given to extending the time to request a

hearing. A request for extension of time

must be made in writing to the Director,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and include a

statement of good cause for the

extension. Any request for a hearing

shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Attention: Docketing and Services

Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies

of the hearing request shall also be sent

to the Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, to the Deputy Assistant

General Counsel for Enforcement at the

same address, to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region III, 801

Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532–4351,

and to the Licensee. If such a person

requests a hearing, that person shall set

forth with particularity the manner in

which his/her interest is adversely

affected by this Order and shall address

criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by a person

whose interest is adversely affected, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of any

such hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Confirmatory

Order should be sustained.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 / Notices 36453

1All investment companies that currently intend

to rely on the order have been named as applicants,

Continued

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this Order.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day

of June 1998.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17773 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–22]

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(CBS Corporation) Westinghouse Test

Reactor; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility License No. TR–2, now held

by the CBS Corporation, formerly

named the Westinghouse Electric

Corporation. The license authorizes

possession only of the Westinghouse

Test Reactor (WTR), located in

Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would amend

Facility License No. TR–2 for the WTR

to reflect the change in the legal name

of the licensee from Westinghouse

Electric Corporation to CBS

Corporation, which occurred on

December 1, 1997.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated December 22, 1997,

as supplemented on June 15, 1998.

Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

accurately reflect the legal name of the

licensee.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed action does not modify

the WTR facility configuration,

procedures or requirements, or affect

licensed activities. The employees

responsible for the licensed WTR

facility will still be responsible

notwithstanding the new name of the

licensee. The proposed action will not

affect the financial qualifications of the

licensee to possess and decommission

the facility.

In light of the foregoing, the

Commission concludes that the change

will not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made in the types of any

effluents that may be released offsite,

and there will be no significant increase

in the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. Accordingly the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action is administrative in nature and

does not involve any physical features

of the plant. Thus, it does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

No alternatives appear that will have

different or lesser effect on the use of

available resources.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 23, 1998, the NRC staff

consulted with the Pennsylvania State

Official, Ray Woods, of the Bureau of

Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

submittals dated December 22, 1997 and

June 15, 1998, which are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington DC.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate,

Division of Reactor Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17774 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel No. IC–23287; 812–10696]

Cash Management Portfolio, et al.;

Notice of Application

June 26, 1998.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b)

of the Investment Company Act of 1940

(the ‘‘Act’’) from section 17(a) of the

Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants

seek an order to permit redemption inkind of shares of certain registered

investment companies by certain

shareholders who are affiliated persons

of the investment companies.

APPLICANTS: Cash Management Portfolio,

Treasury Money Portfolio, Tax Free

Money Portfolio, NY Tax Free Money

Portfolio, International Equity Portfolio,

Utility Portfolio, Equity 500 Index

Portfolio, Short/Intermediate U.S.

Government Securities Portfolio, Asset

Management Portfolio, Capital

Appreciation Portfolio, Intermediate

Tax Free Portfolio, BT Investment

Portfolios (each a ‘‘Portfolio’’), BT

Investment Funds, BT Institutional

Funds, BT Pyramid Mutual Funds, BT

Advisor Funds (each a ‘‘Fund’’), and

Bankers Trust Company (the

‘‘Investment Advisor’’). Applicants also

request relief for each subsequently

created series of the Funds and the

Portfolios and any other registered

open-end investment company advised

by, or substantially all of whose assets

are invested in a Portfolio advised by,

the Investment Advisor or any entity

controlling, controlled by or under

common control with the Investment

Advisor.1